network_info

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the filtering of virtual docker/veth interfaces and references the `ip -j addr` command, which implies JSON output. However, it does not explicitly mention that the operation is read-only, any required privileges, or detailed output structure.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence that is concise and front-loaded. It quickly states the core function, includes the relevant command for reference, and adds the filtering detail without unnecessary verbosity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it names the resource, specifies the command, and highlights a critical filtering behavior. The lack of explicit return format is a minor gap, but the command reference likely provides enough context for an AI agent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no configurable inputs, and the empty schema confirms this. No further parameter semantics are needed.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly specifies the tool's function: listing network interfaces with addresses, using `ip -j addr`. It also distinguishes itself from sibling Docker network tools by explicitly stating that virtual docker/veth interfaces are filtered out, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for obtaining physical/host network interface details, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like `list_networks` (Docker networks) or other info tools. No direct exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.